Legal Research
Cases
Canturi v Sita Coaches Pty Ltd

Canturi v Sita Coaches Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 27 March 2002 64 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Canturi v Sita Coaches Pty Ltd (ACN 004 444 900) [2002] FCA 349
INDUSTRIAL LAW - Australian Workplace Agreement (“AWA”) - Duress - Requirement that application for a penalty be made by a party to the AWA - Whether includes a party to a proposed AWA - Whether an AWA has to be concluded before duress can be applied in connection with it - Whether applicant has to be a party to an actual or proposed AWA at date of application - Whether actual or proposed AWA must stipulate a date on which it is to start to operate in order for there to be parties to the AWA - What constitutes duress - Whether duress has in fact to overbear the will of the person to whom it is applied - Freedom of association - Injuring an employee in his employment or altering his employment to his detriment because he is entitled to the benefit of an industrial instrument - Whether industrial instrument must bind employer in respect of the employee concerned - Only one of two possible employers bound as named respondent to relevant industrial instrument - Whether other related employer estopped from denying that it was bound by the industrial instrument - Whether joint venture or other relationship between two employers makes one the successor or transmittee of part of the business of the other - Same conduct constituting application of duress in connection with an AWA and injuring employee in employment because he was entitled to the benefit of an industrial instrument - Whether proceedings bad for duplicity - Whether same conduct attracts liability for two different penalties - Penalty - Assessment where same conduct constitutes a contravention of two different statutory provisions - Matters to be taken into account - Whether order should be made for payment of penalty to individual applicant - Whether penalty for contravention of Pt XA should include amount in lieu of compensation under s 298U(c).
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss 170VB, 170VV, 170WG, 298K, 298L, 298U, 298X, 356
Maritime Union of Australia v Burnie Port Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 101 IR 435
Schanka v Employment National (Administration) Pty Ltd (2000) 170 ALR 42
Maritime Union of Australia v Geraldton Port Authority (1999) 165 ALR 67
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Textile Footwear and Clothing Union of Australia v Bellechic Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1465
Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome International Pty Ltd (1998) 81 FCR 475
Australian Rail Tram & Bus Industry Union -v- Torrens Transit Services Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1683
Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd v Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees’ Union (No 2) (1987) 15 FCR 66
Linehan v Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) (1982) 66 FLR 90
Bowling v General-Motors Holden Pty Ltd (1975) 8 ALR 197
Ex parte Polley; Re McLennan (1947) 47 SR(NSW) 391
Garrett v Messenger (1867) LR 2 CP 583
In re R Hampton & Sons [1966] 1 QB 135
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Canturi v Sita Coaches Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] FCA 349
Decision Date: 27 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Canturi v Sita Coaches Pty Ltd involved applicants seeking compensation and penalties against the respondents due to alleged breaches of employment laws. The applicants argued they suffered financial detriment due to the respondents' actions and sought relief under various sections of the relevant legislation. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants were entitled to compensation for the financial loss they claimed to have suffered and whether the court should impose penalties on the respondents for their conduct.

The court deliberated on the appropriate exercise of its discretion under the applicable statutes, considering factors such as deterrence, the conduct of the parties, and the need to compensate the applicants for their actual losses. The court concluded that while compensation for financial loss was not warranted, the applicants' significant financial detriment should be factored into the penalty calculation. The court fixed the penalties at $7,000 for each applicant, to be paid directly to them as compensation, and ordered the respondents to pay these amounts within 21 days. The applications were otherwise dismissed.

The court emphasized that any costs borne by the Commonwealth agency funding the applicants' litigation would need to be addressed between the applicants and the funding body. The court's orders were clear: each respondent was to pay a penalty of $7,000 to the respective applicant, with no additional compensation awarded beyond what was included in the penalty.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There be imposed on the first-named respondent a penalty of $7,000.

2. The said penalty be paid within 21 days of this order to the solicitors for the applicant.

3. The application be otherwise dismissed.

1. There be imposed on the first-named respondent and the third-named respondent a penalty of $7,000.

2. The said penalty be paid within 21 days of this day to the solicitors for the applicant.

3. The application be otherwise dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

RYAN J

In the light of all these considerations, I have concluded that a preferable exercise of the Court’s discretion is to decline to make any order for compensation pursuant to s 298U(c) but to take into account, in fixing a penalty under s 298U(a), the fact that each applicant has suffered a significant actual financial detriment as a result of the respondents’ conduct. Taking that matter into account in conjunction with the need for deterrence and the other considerations outlined earlier in this part of these reasons, I fix the penalty for which Coaches shall be liable in Mr Canturi’s application at $7,000. Likewise, the penalty for which Coaches and Bus Lines shall be jointly liable on Mr Napoli’s application is also fixed in the sum of $7,000. A measure of compensation for the detriment I have just identified will be afforded to each applicant as I propose to order, pursuant to s 356(b) of the Act, that the whole of the penalty in each case be paid to the applicant. In opposing that course, Counsel for the applicants submitted;“This is a case in which the applicants have been funded by the Office of the Employment Advocate. Accordingly, to the extent that the penalties are to be paid to compensate the applicants in respect of their costs, the costs have been borne by a Commonwealth agency and the Commonwealth should be remitted them.”However, there is no evidence before the Court to support that assertion. If arrangements have, in fact, been made between the applicants and the Office of the Employment Advocate for the funding of the litigation, it will be for the applicants to discharge their obligations under those arrangements out of the payments by way of penalty which I shall order to be paid to them.Conclusion For reasons which I have endeavoured to explain, there will be an order in each matter for the payment of a penalty of $7,000. It is intended that, in VG 743 of 1999, the two corporate respondents will be jointly and severally liable for payment of that penalty. In each case it will be ordered, pursuant to s 356(b) of the Act, that the penalty be paid in full to the applicant. I shall allow 21 days from the date of the Court’s order for payment of the penalty. Each application will otherwise be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: RYAN J

Full text does not contain this section.